Liberty or Tyranny

[Norm Lenhart]

I don't think it has much to do with ideology. We put up a bunch of unappealing candidates and we lost. Dems did the same thing during the Reagan years. Ideology isn't that relevant when deciding electibility.

Principles are good, but the reality of living a democracy (we are a democratic republic) is that electibility is always, always an issue. What good is it to remain firm on your principles but lose mindlessly every 4 years? I don't see the value in that.

Balance, we need balance.

You get unappealing losers because you abandon principle. Thats how Mitt Romney lost to Barry. We told people he would not win. And as usual people new better.

And if he'd won? More dead babies to feed his stericycle profits. More gay 'rights'. More Gun Control.

So why do it again and again which demonstrably moves the next election even further left? Wich it unarguably has since 1988. There is only one reason. People want abortion, gun control and the rest. If they did not, they would not try electing people with lifetime histories supporting those causes.

[Sanguine]

I don't think it has much to do with ideology. We put up a bunch of unappealing candidates and we lost. Dems did the same thing during the Reagan years. Ideology isn't that relevant when deciding electibility.

Principles are good, but the reality of living a democracy (we are a democratic republic) is that electibility is always, always an issue. What good is it to remain firm on your principles but lose mindlessly every 4 years? I don't see the value in that.

Balance, we need balance.

We are not a democratic republic; we are a representative constitutional republic.

And, as for principles we (the GOP) haven't had those in a long time!  Could be that a real conservative could actually win as opposed to the mushy-mainstream-tending-towards-the-left guys we've been running!

[Free Vulcan]

One of many lines we crossed. I get that people are hoping beyond hope that a white knight will ride in and fix it. That IMO is the appeal of Trump. It's an illusion because 1: America is too far gone on a number of levels besides, 2: The American PEOPLE are too far gone to salvage as evidenced by their demonstrated actions and 3: There is no genuine desire by a majority to change course.

Some of us here and elsewhere very much want course correction. But we are a small minority and as firm as our beliefs, actions and principles may be, we are few and no one wants to stand with us.

It sucks. Royally. But it is demonstrated reality. We absolutely should do all within our power to fight for the America our countrymen pissed away. But we are simply too few to alter the course they set America on.

I've said it here Norm before all the FR flock migrated here, but I'll put it out there again. Alot of the right wing has always talked about this country going to dictatorship and martial law and all that.

To that I say pffft. We don't have the financial position to pull that off. Moreover I think the powers that be don't want to see the United States of America in any form, because we are too strong even as a leftist dictatorship. I think they want to shift the power back to the Old World.

What I see they want is a breakup, and turn us into several smaller less powerful nations. It will be at the point where DC is completely financially impotent, and the states are forced to act. I can see a rump state of NE and Great Lakes states, a block of interior states as another, Russia taking back Alaska, China taking the west coast, Mexico trying to take some SW states, and some states ceding to Canada.

I fully expect the state of Texas to go it alone and take many states with it, and be the new capital at some point. That's a radical concept, but when DC runs out of money, something's going to have to give.

I live in one of the interior states, it's my hope that I'll be part of a new more conservative nation at some point.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You get unappealing losers because you abandon principle.

One does not follow the other. If conservative principles were automagically appealing, they'd win the primary and general election every time. Nope, doesn't work like that.

Reagan had his principles and he converted many people a long the way, but none of it would have happened if he wasn't such a likable candidate in the first place. There's nothing magical about conservative principles that make them win every time.

The middle of country, the "low info" voters that decide elections, usually decide on how much they like a person and would want to have a beer with them. Conservative principles are irrelevant.

[Victoria33]

Except that no one asked for purity. We asked for conservatism. We hear this excuse every 2 years and thats all it is. An excuse.

Norm, this is Marcella from FR.  I just joined this forum yesterday.  I always read your posts on FR and posted to you at times.  You are a conservative and I was not surprised JR stayed on your case.  I was not zotted but left without an opus, just stopped posting.  I never called anyone names, but I did post one time, calling Trump supporters the "Trumpcult", and got hammered by old time Freepers who "were" my friends.  I knew then, (plus Jim started zotting old timers because they said they would not vote for Trump), I could not stay there.  I stopped posting on political threads last January.

[DCPatriot]

I live about an hour away from the largest Amish community in the country.

You'd better believe I've thought about joining them considering the debauchery in this country, sanctioned by the left, and now by Trump.

There may be no where else to go............

You live near "Banshee", PA?

Uh....do you know "Rebecca"?   

[Norm Lenhart]

........I fully expect the state of Texas to go it alone and take many states with it, and be the new capital at some point. That's a radical concept, but when DC runs out of money, something's going to have to give.

I live in one of the interior states, it's my hope that I'll be part of a new more conservative nation at some point.

AZ here. I can totally see that happening. On FR I said somewhat similar myself. We are too 'diverse' philosophically. Which is why the founders wanted people to come here and 'become' Americans in a melting pot while the liberals in both parties divide everything about us to radical degrees.

And of course, the schools, churches and basically all 'institutions' do it. From SJW types screaming about 'cultural appropriation' to Obama's anti-white BS. Only one outcome possible.

[Smokin Joe]

Which is why this time is so discouraging to me. "We" got the conservatism option at the top, but the numbers do not look good at all. I voted Cruz in the primary, but, I cannot help but note that his "messaging" is not all that appealing to me. Sharing a platform with Glenn Beck really alarmed me.  I can overlook that, but do not understand it. All I can discern is that he thought Christians could and would rise in his support, but they have not. In fact, people who claim to be Christian are supporting a man who never has repented of his sins.

He expected the Christians in the south to rise in support, but that didn't happen. Wasn't that just about the same time the National Enquirer allegations of infidelity came out? (Which turned out to be nothing, but the damage, even temporary in nature, was done.

I liken the timing of waves of smear tactics against Cruz to this: You can run with a lit torch. You can run through a puddle of gasoline, but doing both at the same time might have some really bad results. Someone always seemed to get that puddle of gasoline there in time for the vote.

[Norm Lenhart]

One does not follow the other. .... Conservative principles are irrelevant.

Yet one has in fact demonstrably followed the other since 1988. Conservative principles built America and are never irrelevant.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yet one has in fact demonstrably followed the other since 1988. Conservative principles built America and are never irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to the electorate in how they vote. The GOP field is riddled with "Principled Conservative" candidates that went nowhere, because they had no personal appeal. See Alan Keys or any of the other freeper candidates.

[Bigun]

Yet one has in fact demonstrably followed the other since 1988. Conservative principles built America and are never irrelevant.

 

Damn it's good to have you here Norm!

[Norm Lenhart]

They are irrelevant to the electorate in how they vote. The GOP field is riddled with "Principled Conservative" candidates that went nowhere, because they had no personal appeal. See Alan Keys or any of the other freeper candidates.

I think you should take time and reflect on what brought you to the conclusion that A: principled candidates are irrelevant to the electorate. The logical endgame of which, if true, is a vote for a liberal Dem. And B: that the GOP is somehow Riddled" with principled anything other than principled leftism. Candidates with principle do not win because only principled people vote for them. Which speaks well for said candidates and voters...not so well from those voting against them.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think you should take time and reflect on what brought you to the conclusion that A: principled candidates are irrelevant to the electorate. The logical endgame of which, if true, is a vote for a liberal Dem. And B: that the GOP is somehow Riddled" with principled anything other than principled leftism. Candidates with principle do not win because only principled people vote for them. Which speaks well for said candidates and voters...not so well from those voting against them.

I'm just saying, to the general electorate, principles mean jack squat. There are plenty of "principled conservative" candidates that went exactly nowhere.

It does no good to stand on principles but lose every time. No good whatsoever.

[INVAR]

Principles are good, but the reality of living a democracy (we are a democratic republic) is that electibility is always, always an issue. What good is it to remain firm on your principles but lose mindlessly every 4 years? I don't see the value in that.

Balance, we need balance.

'

Rubbish.  The Founders would vehemently disagree with you.  You espouse exactly what they knew would be one of the key ingredients to the same fate that befell every other "democratic republic" before ours.  You cannot have liberty, you cannot have freedom, you cannot have a Constitution without morality and Principles being the cornerstone of a people who choose their rulers with the same values and principles.

We stand indicted as a whole People without morals or a Constitution, and what you see is just the beginning of those fruits: the tyranny of men.

[Bigun]

'

Rubbish.  The Founders would vehemently disagree with you.  You espouse exactly what they knew would be one of the key ingredients to the same fate that befell every other "democratic republic" before ours.  You cannot have liberty, you cannot have freedom, you cannot have a Constitution without morality and Principles being the cornerstone of a people who choose their rulers with the same values and principles.

We stand indicted as a whole People without morals or a Constitution, and what you see is just the beginning of those fruits: the tyranny of men.

Another one outta the park!

BRAVO!!!

[Norm Lenhart]

I'm just saying, to the general electorate, principles mean jack squat. There are plenty of "principled conservative" candidates that went exactly nowhere.

It does no good to stand on principles but lose every time. No good whatsoever.

But what is the positive outcome for electing people like Mitch, Ryan, Bhoner, Ryan and attempts at Dole, Romney and the rest?  What did they do better than a Harry Reid? Last year they sided with Dems 100% of the time on every big issue.

So why "NOT" stand on principle and lose? At the minimum, you still have personal integrity if nothing else. The GOP Leftist backers lost or had their people forward leftism AND are responsible for their election. Without principle, without principled govt, you have America 2016. Are you satisfied with that choice? If you are, so be it. If you are not, your worldview failed you and the rest of us.

One or the other.

[INVAR]

The middle of country, the "low info" voters that decide elections, usually decide on how much they like a person and would want to have a beer with them. Conservative principles are irrelevant.

This is exactly why we have arrived where we have as a nation in decline.

And how Republics devolve into horrifying dictatorships.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You cannot have liberty, you cannot have freedom, you cannot have a Constitution without morality and Principles being the cornerstone of a people who choose their rulers with the same values and principles.

I don't disagree with you, but we live in a Republic and elected officials still run that Republic. What good is it to lose every time?

We have the "Principled" conservative candidate in the primary (nearly) every election, but they go nowhere. Because they have no mass appeal.

Conservatism will go nowhere, and go down with the Whigs and no-nothings, if they consistently lose elections every time. Base conservatism is greying and dying out. Losing elections makes you a loser in the eyes of the public.

The simple fact is that value and principles are great, but they must be balanced with pragmatism. This is reality. Anything else is just conservative, talk-radio fantasy.

Plus there's the simple fact that there is no such thing as the "perfect candidate". Winning elections means compromise. Period.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is exactly why we have arrived where we have as a nation in decline.

And how Republics devolve into horrifying dictatorships.

So what's the solution then?

[austingirl]

AZ here. I can totally see that happening. On FR I said somewhat similar myself. We are too 'diverse' philosophically. Which is why the founders wanted people to come here and 'become' Americans in a melting pot while the liberals in both parties divide everything about us to radical degrees.

And of course, the schools, churches and basically all 'institutions' do it. From SJW types screaming about 'cultural appropriation' to Obama's anti-white BS. Only one outcome possible.

I have supported Texas secession for years. All the liberals can depart for points east. Texas could go it alone.

[Free Vulcan]

I have supported Texas secession for years. All the liberals can depart for points east. Texas could go it alone.

I think you'd be amazed at how many states would go with you.

[Bigun]

I have supported Texas secession for years. All the liberals can depart for points east. Texas could go it alone.

As you well know there is a growing movement for just that here in Texas and if we get either HIllary or Trump for president I will be instantly onboard!

[INVAR]

I don't disagree with you, but we live in a Republic and elected officials still run that Republic.

We are no longer a Republic except in Name Only.  When the Executive can overtly subvert the Constitution without consequence and the people demand breads and circuses with a serving of punishment and revenge by Populist Nationalists and Marxists appeal to the basest forms of human nature, a republic no longer exists.

We have the "Principled" conservative candidate in the primary (nearly) every election, but they go nowhere. Because they have no mass appeal.

You made my whole point, and John Adams' prophetic point about our Constitution only being able to govern a moral and religious people.

Conservatism will go nowhere, and go down with the Whigs and no-nothings, if they consistently lose elections every time.

Enjoy the Fascist Dictatorship and Mobocracy that now rules us then.  Practice life on your knees and licking palms that promise you your heart's desires.

The simple fact is that value and principles are great, but they must be balanced with pragmatism.

The nation has followed your recipe for "pragmatism" for over 100 years - with an 8-year hiccup in the 1980s.  What we have become, is exactly what you want.

Plus there's the simple fact that there is no such thing as the "perfect candidate". Winning elections means compromise. Period.

Again, you made my whole point.  Welcome to Ameritopia, you should do well if you are careful to avoid what usually happens to Useful Idiots when the next phase of where we have arrived is empowered.

[Lando Lincoln]

As you well know there is a growing movement for just that here in Texas and if we get either HIllary or Trump for president I will be instantly onboard!

Do you have a spare bedroom?  A loft?  Corner in a shed?  If the back holds up, I'm good at traditional manly-man chores.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Enjoy the Fascist Dictatorship and Mobocracy that now rules us then.  Practice life on your knees and licking palms that promise you your heart's desires.

Enjoy it? Won't you have to live in the same country? I'm not ok with the political situation, never have been. I'm just trying to tell you the reality of the situation.

The nation has followed your recipe for "pragmatism" for over 100 years - with an 8-year hiccup in the 1980s.  What we have become, is exactly what you want.

Again, you made my whole point.  Welcome to Ameritopia, you should do well if you are careful to avoid what usually happens to Useful Idiots when the next phase of where we have arrived is empowered.

So what is your solution then? Continue trying to nominate candidate who cannot and will not win?